Date: Feb 3, 2013 4:13 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203
In article

<be5cf5d4-da59-46b4-ab5f-3425e8071395@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 3 Feb., 09:26, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 3, 8:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> >

> > > In fact we can say that in a suitable list "every" initial segment of

> > > s is contained in some line, since there is no s(n) = (s1, s2, ...,

> > > sn) missing. But there is no sensible way of saying "all" initial

> > > segment.

> >

> > We can say "every line has the property that it

> > does not contain every initial segment of segment of s"

> > There is no need to use the concept "all".

>

> Yes, and this is the only sensible way to treat infinity. But "every

> initial segment" has, inadvertently and only noticed by sharp minds

> like those of Brouwer and Weyl, changed into "all initial segments" as

> you can see from the question concerning the path of 1/3 in a Binary

> Tree that contains only every initial segment of the path of 1/3.

If it is actually a path in a CIBT, meaning that it has an actual

inifinity of nodes, then it contains not only every but also all finite

initial segments of the binary form of 1/3

>

> Set theory exists only because of the continued switching between

> these two meanings. If I ask for a level omega distinguishing between

> "every finite path" and the "actually infinite path", I am railed at

> (with full right - a level omega is nonsense). But by sending terms of

> a sequence only, information about an infinite sequence has never been

> transferred.

If one gives a general form for those terms, one defines ALL of them

In binary, 1/3 is 0.(01), where (01) indicates the infinite string of 01

repeating forever.

And every of actually infinitely many proper fractions has has some

finitely expressible binary expression.

--